Abode

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people were not always well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Observations we witnessed throughout our onsite inspection between staff and people were not always that of a kind, caring and dignified manner. We found examples where people were not being supported as they should be, we found examples were people had inappropriate footwear on. The provider told us they took action regarding the inappropriate footwear following our inspection. We found one example were a person used their clothes to wipe their face following a meal as there were no napkins. Staff did not always appropriately intervene when needed. Professionals did not always feel that people were treated in a kind compassionate way.

People felt staff treated then with respect. One person said, “Staff treat me with respect.” While the people we spoke with expressed they were happy with their care, our assessment found elements of the care did not meet the expected standards. Staff spoke about how they kept keep people’s information private and confidential. One staff member said, "Whatever is discussed is kept private." Staff feedback did not align with our findings as detailed throughout this report.

People’s feedback about making choices was mixed, whilst some people said they got to make choices around what time they went to bed and got up, others explained they didn’t get choices in relation to their food preferences and activities.

Staff told us they knew people well. During our walk around, we observed that people’s bedrooms were personalised with their chosen items such as photos and belongings important to them. We did see some examples of people’s communication needs recorded in their care plan.

Feedback on activities was mixed, one relative said, “I brought her some pencils, she likes colouring, interacting and chatting, that is the only downside, there could be more activities.” One person told us, “It is great here, I have friends, and I do activities, I like the colouring.” One person told us they had not been asked to take part in activities.

Staff we spoke with flagged concerns relating to the activities. Staff comments included, "It (activities) would improve with more staff. We don’t have an activities coordinator.", “I think we need more staff to do more (activities)." And "It would help if we had more staff (to do activities), but we do try to do some activities." The home did not employ an activities coordinator, but care staff did try to offer some activities. The service had an activity plan in place on the noticeboard that showed some of the activities that were being offered throughout the week.

Most people felt they were able to make choices. One person told us, “I get to make choices what I eat, when I go to bed, I sleep like a log and a nice young gentleman comes to wake me up in the morning.” Staff spoke about how they tried to encourage people’s independence. One staff member said, "We observe them (people), and we encourage them to do what they can."

We observed staff responding to people’s needs by supporting them with things such as mobilising and providing one-to-one support where required, but this was not always consistent. At lunch time we also witnessed staff supporting people when required, though elements of the dining experience needed to be improved in areas including optional use of non-plastic cups, lack of napkins, lack of condiments and alternative menus for people with specific dietary wishes. The provider told us they were working to make improvements in this area.

People and relatives felt staff understood their needs. One relative told us, “They really have been understanding with [person using the serviced] he doesn’t always get on with males. He can be a bit abrupt, so they try to keep him with female carers. They are very patient.” While the people we spoke with expressed they were happy with their care, our assessment found elements of the care did not meet the expected standards. The registered manager told us how they communicated with people who may find it difficult to communicate verbally, one staff member told us how they look out for signs of pain, they said, "We would look at the expression and we do ask."

Staff told us they felt valued at work but feedback around workload was mixed. One staff member said, "Yes (I feel valued) …. "It (workload) would be better with more staff." A dependency tool was in place to help calculate staffing requirements, though this was not effective.

Various policies were in place to support staff wellbeing. Staff were able to raise concerns in various ways should they have any and through various channels.